Liberalism’s Assault on Reality

The public outcry over the 2005 U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Kelo v. New London at least equaled that over the more recent cases involving ObamaCare (Sebelius) and gay marriage (Obergefell).

In his dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas explained the reason behind the public’s dismay:

This deferential shift in phraseology enables the Court to hold, against all common sense, that a costly urban-renewal project whose stated purpose is a vague promise of new jobs and increased tax revenue, but which is also suspiciously agreeable to the Pfizer Corporation, is for a “public use.”

The deferential shift to which he referred could be seen that even though the liberal majority of the court determined, “The city’s proposed disposition of petitioners’ property qualifies as a ‘public use’ within the meaning of the Takings Clause,” it noted that “this ‘Court long ago rejected any literal requirement that condemned property be put into use for the … public.’ Rather, it has embraced the broader and more natural interpretation of public use as ‘public purpose.’”

This is a world turned upside down.

The Consitution of the United States was written in English, yet the court’s majority tells us that it needs to interpret the English used in the Constitution into, well, English so that we can understand what it means. It does so by proclaiming the “more natural interpretation of public use [is] ‘public purpose.’”

But this begs the question; if the “more natural interpretation of public use [is] ‘public purpose,’” why didn’t the framers of the Constitution just use ‘public purpose’ in the first place?

Perhaps it was because the term was not available at the time of the Constitutional Convention. Unfortunately, we’ll have to look further for an answer: the doctrine of public purpose seems to have “rich origins in Homeric and later Classical Greece.”

Of course, no further search is actually necessary. We know why the court’s majority did what it did. They didn’t like what the United State’s Constitution says on the topic of private property, so they decided to change it by rewriting it–and then pretend that they didn’t.

This is not unlike Chief Justice John Robert’s morphing of ObamaCare’s mandate forcing people to buy healthcare insurance into a tax in order to find some way to justify Congress’ unjustifiable coercion of the American people.

Liberalism assaults reality like this because they want to hide their true agenda, which is using the government to force everyone to see the world just like they do. So much for diversity.